Headlines

“I think if we’re going to control guns, we really have to do it massive”

Later in his appearance, Brooks added that, although Friday’s shooting likely won’t change public opinion on gun control in the long run, he favors strict gun control measures.

“These kinds of shootings historically have had no effect on public opinion in the gun debate,” Brooks said. “I think if we’re going to control guns, we really have to do it massive. I think I’m all for getting rid of the assault weapons and machine guns and all that … but if we want to prevent something like this, we have to really think seriously about drastically reducing the number of guns in our society, and particularly — this is an old Patrick Daniel Moynihan idea — the number of bullets. It is very hard to control 300 million guns. The bullets are a little easier to control.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

And that’s if the murders were entirely prevented should another shooting spree occur, which is unlikeley.

That didn’t come out right. I meant to say that the presence of arms in a school would likely not prevent every death, not that another shooting spree is unlikely.

Point being, if every school had armed teachers, etc, then you might lower the death toll from a murder spree from 20 to 10 by having an armed intervention, but in the years between such extremely rare incidences we could see 1000 people killed, one at a time, from the accidental or intentional discharge of just a few of hundreds of thousands of firearms carried by well-meaning people. And the school systems would be liable for every death and every injury from employees carrying.

Allowing armed people inside every school and similar facility would have its own consequences, which need to be calculated.

To make myself clear: Adam Lanza pumped three to eleven rounds from a Bushmaster into each one of twenty children. I am not anti-gun, I am anti-Murderous Adam Lanza, and HIS mother Nancy’s irresponsibility in allowing her deranged son access to so much firepower.

Yes there could have been. If there had been two armed policemen at that school the individual would have probably been stopped. One or two might have been killed, but that would be it.

William Eaton

If there were armed police at that school, he would have killed who knows how many children/adults at a daycare instead, or at a different school, or at a church, or at a movie theater, or at a shopping mall, or at a grocery store, etc. Those children may have been saved, but unless you’re advocating a police state with armed guards posted all over the state of Connecticut, someone elses children would have taken their place. When a person like this is hellbent on committing mass murder, there is no law that can prevent it.

If he was a danger that the mother felt the need to protect herself with guns from her child wouldn’t it have been better if the mother had a pathway to admit her son into a mental facility?

unseen

But that wasn’t the case. She didn’t own these guns because she felt the need to protect herself from her child, at least that’s not what has been reported.

what if there were 30 armed teachers in the school instead of 2 armed police men? the shooter killed 8 adults what makes you think 2 armed policeman could have stopped it? He could have easily killed 2 armed policeman. 30 armed teachers? now the law of averages are working in your favor. The better armed the citizens are the better thay are to defend themselves their children and their property from evil insane people.

In fact the sensible law that made schools “gun free zones” most likely lead to a higher body count then a smaller body count.

It is no small coincidence that these insane evil people pick “gun free zones” to kill in. when was the last time this evil tried to do a mass shooting in a police station? Then ask yourselve why. Just like the guy who said when asked why did he rob banks responded because that is where the money is. Why do shooters pick schools and other places like malls and theaters? Because that is where the most defensless people gather. You want to stop these killings arm the citizens and teach them to protect themsleves. Freedom solves these acts of evil in thier tracks the freedom to defend yourself stops these people.

You can pass all the laws you want but any laws that disarm the citzens will simple increase the body count next time.

unseen on December 15, 2012 at 10:39 PM

I would agree with 30 armed teachers. You are not going to get an argument from me.

My point about having police officers stationed in schools is it is the easiest politically possible solution we can do right now. Yes he might have killed both of them, of five police office, of fifty police officers, but the fact remains that two armed police officers had a good chance to stop the lunatic. He forced his way into the school, and may have been a good shot, but he is not some delta force member. People need to stop acting like this guy was some kind of unstoppable force and no security measures would have stopped him. The reason he killed so many people is there was no one there to shoot back.

The real point of this story is automatic locks on doors, and other expensive security systems are no substitute for armed security, no matter if that armed security comes in form of teachers with guns, security guards with guns, or police with guns.

If there were armed police at that school, he would have killed who knows how many children/adults at a daycare instead, or at a different school, or at a church, or at a movie theater, or at a shopping mall, or at a grocery store, etc. Those children may have been saved, but unless you’re advocating a police state with armed guards posted all over the state of Connecticut, someone elses children would have taken their place. When a person like this is hellbent on committing mass murder, there is no law that can prevent it.

xblade on December 16, 2012 at 1:02 AM

I am not advocating a police state, but what I am advocating is that once that child is in the care of the public school system it is the responsibility of the state to take care of that child. Schools are a prime target, for gangs, for jihadist, for deranged lunatics. We have armed guards at military installations, at nuclear power plants, at government buildings, etc. God forbid if local hack politicians can get police protection, I would think we could at least could spare a few to protect school kids. It is not fool proof, I know that for nothing is, but it least offers some resistance and makes the schools in this country less of a hard target.

BTW: I know the insane lunatic could go somewhere else, like the local mall, but at least we will have made it harder to attack the school. Maybe you prefer we don’t do anything, and let the leftwing in this country keep milking stories like this to push for more gun control. Every nut and copycat psycho is now going to be hitting schools left and right to get their names in the paper and on TV, and the media will love it….

God forbid if local hack politicians can get police protection, I would think we could at least spare a few to protect school kids. It is not fool proof, I know that for nothing is, but it least offers some resistance and makes the schools in this country MORE of a hard target.

Mark DeMoss, advisor to Romneys Presidential campaign and christian conservative states that the pubs should break ranks and go in for gun control. Are they gonna fold on this issue too? Wimps are what they are. What a disgrace…

People just keep seeing Japan, where 70 gun deaths creates a national uproar and as recent as 2006 only 2 people died from guns. I’ve not heard a conservative explanation for why we can’t strive to at least come close to that, but so long as the examples exist certain people will ask why we can’t manage to shoot each other at a rate closer to the rest of the big, large, stable democracies.

ernesto on December 15, 2012 at 9:07 PM

As usual, things are a quite a bit more complicated than you make them out to be.

The “progressives” have brought us the culture of the “no value for human life”. It began with abortion on demand and its latest peak is the disgusting, vividly graphic murderous video games that these mentally imbalanced, disturbed Godless young boys play for countless periods of time. Not measured in hours but by days.

Why do you always use names? I am not a moron. You don’t know history. Have you ever read the preamble the first 10 amendments. They are directed towards congress? You don’t understand what Federalism is.

When the federal constitution was adopted all of the states had their own constitutions and were sovereign.

Read about the Virginia ratification debates. Without an agreement to these amendments they never ratify the constitution which means the union does not hold together in all likelihood.

They wanted the amendments because they felt the constitution made the federal government stronger. They were not passing these amendments to give the federal government control of more laws like gun laws.

This whole thing stinks.
“Never let a crisis go to waste?”
There truly are MINDLESS idiots in this country because anyone with even half a brain knows the gun control argument is juat a massive governmental power grab.